SPE 56650
Production Logging Problem Description in October Field, Gulf of Suez
Adel A. Ibrahim, SPE, Suez Canal University ; and Azzam Mostafa, Gupco
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3–6 October 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Production Logging Tools have significantly helped reservoir
management in October field. Direction of water movement
within the Nubia reservoir was understood by production
logging indicating an active water rise as the primary driving
mechanism. Over 100 PLT logs (PLT's) completed on 74
wells in October field have been selected for this study. A
computer program is developed to analyze these PLT’s
systematically with the possibility to correlate the results to
corresponding measured data when available. These PLT's
were utilized to control water production by identifying proper
placements of Through-Tubing Bridge Plugs (TTBP) for water
shut-off (WSO).
In special cases, when water cut increases, old PLT data can
be used to estimate the progress of zone water out without
running an additional PLT. This article describes a technique
to re-allocate the production within wells based on previous
PLT data from the same well. Based on the success of this
back-calculation method, over $25,000 per WSO in October
field has been saved by eliminating an additional PLT.
Experience in October field indicates that results of production
logging analysis using conventional tool configuration are not
sufficient to make decisions for WSO work over. Well head
measurements, reservoir driving mechanism, and direction of
fluid movement should also be utilized.
Direct PLT interpretation has led to non-representative results
for over 78% of the studied wells. The standard PLT analysis
usually shows a misleading water production within the
different sets of perforations along the well. This problem was
first recognized by WSO results through which water was
proven to enter the well from the bottom interval only. These
errors were first attributed to hole deviation, however, field
scale investigation indicated that other factors are involved
since the problem was encountered in vertical wells as well.
Gradio-manometer’s poor accuracy is believed to be the main
reason for such non-representative results.
Production Logging Applications
The great value of production logs lies in their ability to
provide determinations of the dynamic flow patterns of well
fluids under stable producing or injecting conditions. In
producing wells, production logs can determine which
perforated zones are producing fluids, ascertain the types and
proportions of the fluids, and measure the downhole
conditions of temperature and pressure, and the rates at which
the fluids are flowing. Production logs are also used to detect
mechanical problems in producing or injection wells and
provide guidance for work over in such wells.
Tools A suite of production logging tools is available in
different configurations and sizes. Four basic sensors are
common in any production logging tool:
1. Thermometer
2. fluid density Gradio-manometer
3. flowmeter spinner
4. Manometer.
Other sensors can be added to enhance the representation of
the logs or to overcome a special situation or a certain
problem. Hold-up meter, noise, nuclear density, and
radioactive tracer are examples of these sensors. Figure1
describes a typical PLT tool combination.
October Field
The October Field is located offshore in the Gulf of Suez
(GOS) approximately 200 miles southeast of Cairo and 70
miles north of the operating base in Ras-Shukheir, Egypt. The
October Field area is the largest of seven major producing
areas in the GOS operated by the Gulf of Suez Petroleum
Company (GUPCO). GUPCO's combined GOS production
averaged 320,000 bopd during early 1997. Gas lift is the most
widely used form of artificial lift in the GOS.
Production from the October Field during early 1997 was
140,000 bopd which represents over 40% of GUPCO's total
2 ADEL A. IBRAHIM & AZZAM MOSTAFA
GOS production. OOIP for the October Field was close to 2.5
billion barrels and recovery from 1979 through 1997 is over
750 million barrels of primary oil. The major producing
formation in the October Field is the massive carboniferous
Nubia sandstone which has an active bottom water drive. As a
result, PLT's were very useful for determining how perforated
interval were watered out. Based on the analysis, over 100
TTBP WSO's have been installed in Nubia wells.
Geology. The main Nubia reservoir at October Field is a
massive oil wet sand that has an average mid zone TVD datum
of -11,250 feet sub-sea. Normal faulting has divided the field
into several areas. The central part of the October Nubia is
elongated six miles from the northwest to southeast. It is
bounded on the western and southern sides by a large fault.
The structure is further complicated by a number of smaller
parallel splinter faults. Formation dip is to the northeast at 10
degrees. Figure 2 shows the top Nubia structure map for
October field.
PLT log analysis described in this study focus on the light
oil sand layers of October field. These layers have 525 feet of
gross thickness and 488 feet net pay thickness. Average
porosity in the net pay is 16% with an average permeability of
260 md. Permeability increases with depth and ranges from
less than 200 md. to over 1000 md. Since the higher
permeability sands are deeper, bottom water movement causes
the lower zones to water out first. This characteristic controls
timing of PLT and subsequent WSO work. Unwanted water is
selectively shut off from the bottom upward. New completion
takes this into account and tubing conveyed perforations are
spaced so future WSO work can be easily completed. Table 1
details the October Nubia formation main characteristics.
PLT Optimization. Appropriate timing of a PLT is
determined from data evaluated weekly from all 74 producing
wells in October Field. Timing of a PLT has to be correctly
determined in order to control costs. Hence a PLT should be
run about the time a zone is expected to approach a watered
out condition. Proper timing also allows maximum oil
production, gas lift optimization and conservation of reservoir
energy.
Experience in October field showed that there are no stand
alone criteria for a PLT candidate selection. In general, four
criteria were always utilized for decision making; namely:
1. Well head conditions
2. Water cut
3. Well testing
4. Structural position.
All 74 October Field producers are monitored on daily bases
via a radio wave monitoring system. Three parameters
provides the first indicator that a well may require remedial
work. These parameters are wellhead flowing temperature,
gas lift downstream pressure, and lift gas rate. Since water
retains more heat than oil, wellhead temperature begins a
SPE 56650
gradual increase until water cut reaches the point where
production sharply decreases. As water cut increases, more
lift gas is required to produce at stable well head temperature
and downstream pressure conditions. If too many wells
produce with a high water cut, gas lift volume constraints can
cause gas lift problems across the field
Even with infrequent well tests for October field, good
estimation of reservoir pressure and other parameters allowed
projection of produced fluid trends to obtain a reasonable
estimate of production rate during the PLT. A computer nodal
analysis model and measured water cut are used to estimate
production rate if a well test was not conducted before a PLT.
Structure cross sections are used to estimate edge water influx
and resultant oil water contact position changes over time.
Offset producing well position and performance are also
considered to detect the appropriate timing of a PLT.
Terminal wells in a fault block are commonly produced to a
higher WC before running the PLT. This ensures that an
interval is completely watered out before any shut off.
PLT back-calculation (re-contribution technique)
In special cases, when water cut increases, an old PLT can be
used to estimate the progress of zone water out without
running additional PLT. Hence, when PLT back-calculations
are performed, adjustments are made for water hold-up effects
in the upper perforated intervals. Based on the success of this
back-calculation method, over $25,000 per WSO has been
saved by eliminating an additional PLT.
Experience in October field showed that a new PLT data is
required only when:
1) PLT data are at least 1.5 years old;
2) The previous WSO isolated a complete zone; or
3) The well is a terminal producer.
To perform a water shut-off job based on re-contribution
technique, the flowing conditions have to exist:
1. Uniform bottom water rises reservoir.
2. Same completion; i.e. no new perforated intervals are
added
3. Production is above bubble point.
4. Water-cut is confirmed by collecting enough representative
wellhead samples.
October G-13 Example. Figure and table 3a details the PLT
analysis for October G-13 well logged on January 15, 1996.
The analysis shows that water is being produced mainly from
the bottom interval (12400-12440). Two weeks later, the
bottom interval was shut off, and water production decreased
to 2%.
Afterwards, water cut in this well increased gradually until it
reached 50% on April 20, 1996 with a production rate of 3390
bfpd. Re-contribution calculations were performed based on
the 50% water cut and 3390 bfpd using January 1996 PLT.
Figure and table 3b show the re-contribution results.
SPE 56650 PRODUCTION LOGGING PROBLEM DESCRIPTION IN OCTOBER FIELD GULF OF SUEZ
Based on the re-contribution calculations, the bottom interval
(12328-12390') was isolated on June 1st, 1996 and water-cut
decreased to 2% with a production rate of 6392 bfpd
compared to 3390 bfpd before WSO.
October A-5 Example. Figure and table 4a show PLT results
for well October A-5 logged on May 9,1994. The analysis
estimated 20% water cut which agreed closely to the value
measured at the wellhead. The analysis also indicated that the
bottom interval (12250-12310) is almost watered out,
however, it only contributes 8% to the total production of the
well. Consequently, shutting this interval alone would not
decrease the water cut significantly. It was decided then to do
the re-contribution calculations base on an overall water cut of
26% which represent the water cut when both the two bottom
interval will be completely watered out.
Figure and table 4b shows the re-contribution calculations for
October A-5 which is confirmed by the WSO for the intervals
below 12218' on June 1, 1995 where water cut decreased from
26% to 0.2%.
The previous two examples showed clearly that the re-
contribution back calculations provide a scenario based on
both previous PLT interpretation results and experience in the
field. The scenario helps to design the work over job without
the need for a new PLT before the work over. WSO jobs in
October field confirmed the feasibility of such technique
within the specified limits.
PLT Anomalies In October Field
Introduction. Unlike open hole logs, production logging
tools are concerned with measurements inside well bores. The
complex nature of vertical flow in wells is a product of many
factors affecting this process. Flow regime, gas slippage,
water cut, hole deviation, pipe diameter, gas-liquid ratio, and
properties of both the oil and gas are among these factors. Off
course, analysis of any dynamic measurements inside the well
bore has to deal with all the above mentioned factors;
quantifying some of them and excluding the effect of the
others.
Field practice showed some shortcomings when interpreting
production logs in producing wells. The reasons behind these
shortcomings was never evaluated on a field scale in order to
establish a starting point to enhance tool sensors, logging
methodology, or even the measurement theory itself. The
effect of hole deviation on the performance of different PL
tools available in the market were investigated experimentally
by Hill et al in 1982. The results assured the effect of
deviation angle on spinner readings.
This research was dedicated to monitor the performance of the
tool over a specific reservoir where the following criteria
exists:
1) Well known structure, fluid movements, and accurate
measuring systems for wells;
3
2) Abundance of PLT surveys with multi PL surveys in the
same well;
3) Detailed records of work over jobs in between the
surveys; and
4) Different wells trajectories, flow rates, and GLR.
The above criteria were set in order to evaluate the
performance of the tool sensors under different conditions.
October field in the Gulf of Suez, Egypt was found to meet the
above mentioned criteria with over 100 PLT surveys
conducted over the reservoir. Table 2 details PLT surveys in
October field.
October field has bottom water drive mechanism. Hence, the
bottom perforations are the main source of water production.
The classical interpretation of 78% of the PLT's completed in
the October field have not reflected the driving mechanism of
the reservoir. The following are a summary for the problems
encountered during the analysis:
1. False positive water production
2. False negative water production
3. False positive and negative water production
4. Different water density values for same well from
subsequent PLT's
5. Different Gradio-manometer measurements between up
and down for same PLT
6. Low flow rate wells.
Definition of false water production. Figure 5 shows a
typical situation where fluid is being produced across
perforation sets. The right hand side of the figure shows three
producing perforation sets, while the left-hand side shows two
producing sets. The third (top) set is shown to be taking fluids.
Flow rates across perforations are calculated at points A, B,
and C using Equations 1, 2, and 3.
Q1 = QA - QB (1)
Q2 = QB - QC (2)
Q3 = QC (3)
Positive water means that water is entering the well through
subsequent perforations (RHS of Figure 5). Whereas negative
water indicates that water is going out of the well to the
formation via the perforations (top perforation set on the LHS
of Figure 5.
1. False Positive Water Production
Twenty two percent of the total PLT logs run in October field
showed false positive water. The angle of deviation of wells
having this anomaly ranged from 3° to 44°. Water cut of this
category ranged from 26% to 70%.
October C-3 Well
October C-3 well is an example of wells showing false
positive water entry to the well. Figure and table 6 shows the
results of a PLT survey performed in January 1995 on this
well. The results indicated a total water cut of 70% with the
4 ADEL A. IBRAHIM & AZZAM MOSTAFA
lower perforation contribute for 40% of the total production
rate of the well. In reality, the well was tested at 40% water
cut before the WSO, and after isolating the bottom interval
(11982-12036') on February 7 1995, water cut decreased from
40% to 1.3%. This confirms that all water production
estimated by the analysis for the upper intervals was
misleading and only the bottom interval was producing water.
2. False Negative Water Production
Eight percent of the total PLT logs run in October field
showed false negative water. The angle of deviation of the
wells having this anomaly ranged from 4° to 27°. Water cut
of this category ranged from 25% to 40%.
October H-4 Well
Similar to the case of false positive water, October H-4 well is
an example for wells showing false water exit from the well to
the formation. Figure and table 7 shows the results of the PLT
performed on July 24, 1995 on this well. The results indicated
a negative water production as high as 1034 bpd at the interval
(11413 – 11454’) although the spinner showed a production
from this interval. The two bottom intervals (11522 – 11560’)
and (11490 – 11512’) were isolated on January 3, 1996. After
this WSO water cut decreased from 46% to 12%.
3. False Positive & Negative Water Production
Forty eight percent of the total PLT logs run in October field
showed combined false positive and negative water in the
same well. The angle of deviation of the wells having this
anomaly ranged from 2° to 45°. Water cut of this category
ranged from 25% to 70%.
October G-5 Well
This case is a combination of the previous two cases. Well G-
5 was logged on January 12, 1994 with tested water cut of
36%. After isolating the two bottom intervals (11788-11820')
and (11725-11770') on April 1, 1994 water cut decreased from
36% to 2%. Figure and table 8 shows the results of the PLT
analysis for the well indicating false water production in and
out of the well.
4. Different water density readings from subsequent PLT's
in the same well
A common practice in PLT analysis is to read the water
density directly in the lower section of the well during the
shut-in passes. This off course gives the most reliable values
where bottom hole conditions prevail, and gravity segregation
helps to establish enough water column necessary to have a
stabilized gradio-manometer reading. Experience in October
field shows that Gradio-manometer readings during the shut-in
pass varies significantly from readings on subsequent PLT
logs in the same well taking into consideration pressure
decline effect on the water density. Most of the wells indicate
a water density difference between subsequent PLT's in the
range of 0.02 to 0.071 gm/cc. In some cases, a shift in the
Gradio-manometer's readings along the well would solve the
problem. The question her is what is the true value of the
SPE 56650
water density in the well? The answer comes from the
knowledge of formation water salinity and other reservoir
parameters together with previous PLT surveys in the same
well. The problem becomes much more complicated when
shifting the Gradio-manometer data does not work
To illustrate this Gradio-manometer readings anomaly,
consider the PLT in well October A-1 logged on March 1996.
The Gradio-manometer reading during shut in pass was 1.07
gm/cc. Using this density, the analysis estimated water cut of
25% compared with actual tested value of 40%. Increasing
water density by 0.03 gm/cc and shifting all Gradio-
manometer measurements by the same value adjusted the PLT
water cut to 40%. The value of 0.03 gm/cc was dictated from
previous PLT survey in the well and knowledge of the
formation water salinity. Tables 3 and 4 manifest the
differences in gradiomanometer readings in October wells.
5. Different water density readings from different passes.
Difference between Gradio-manometer readings during the up
and down passes in October field averaged 0.036 gm/cc.
Normally, this difference results in an error of ± 10% in water
cut. October H-1 well logged in October 1994, showed
Gradio-manometer measurements of down passes greater than
that of up passes by 0.029 to 0.037 gm/cc. The calculated
water cut of the well using down passes showed 53% while
that of the up passes showed 44%. As high as 586-bwpd
difference resulted from using either up or down Gradio pass.
In general, all the PLT logs conducted in October wells have a
minimum of 0.02 gm/cc between up and down logging passes.
6. Low flow rate wells
During the course of PLT analysis in October field, it has been
found that water production calculated against perforated
intervals producing less than 500 bfpd is usually in error. In
low rate wells (less than 1000), when production is coming
from two or more intervals, the water calculated at these
intervals is usually false and the PLT results are not
representative in such cases.
Illustrative examples
Figure and table 9 details a PLT survey conducted on
November 20, 1997 for October B-5 well, , the analysis
showed that the upper intervals are watered out (80% & 91%
WC) whereas October Field’s history excludes any possibility
of any water intrusion from TZ (top interval). This false
watering out is mainly due to low oil production rate from the
upper perforation sets
Figure and table 10 is for a PLT survey conducted on February
16, 1997 in October J-8 well. This well produces with a large
volume coming from the bottom interval (1217 bwpd). Direct
PLT analysis indicated high water cut (65% - 77%) in the
upper intervals. After isolating the bottom production by
setting a through tubing bridge plug at 11182’ water cut of the
well has decreased from 80% to traces. This concludes that
the Gradio is not sensitive enough to measure the small
SPE 56650 PRODUCTION LOGGING PROBLEM DESCRIPTION IN OCTOBER FIELD GULF OF SUEZ
contribution of oil from the top intervals in the presence of this
big volume of water. This phenomena is usually found in
wells where the top perforated intervals produces with a small
rate compared with the large production coming from the
bottom intervals.
Problem of Hole Deviation
Water Re-Circulation
In a deviated well, the flow regime can be different from a
simple bubble flow, and the spinner might not be able to
record its complexity. The negative water contribution can
then be interpreted as a down flow of water on the low side of
the wellbore (which is termed water re-circulation). This down
flow of water generally happens when considerable amount of
oil is produced with water. Because of the buoyancy, the oil
goes on the upper side of the pipe faster than the water. The
oil drags with it some water at a high velocity, which
eventually falls back on the low side of the pipe. In such
cases, depending on how much fluid is moving up or down,
the spinner might only see part of the flow. Figures 11
illustrates the two conditions.
In general, hole deviation affects the performance of the
spinner and consequently, makes PLT analysis more
complicated. Gradio-manometer’s poor accuracy does reduce
the over all tool performance consistently.
In order to study the performance of PLT tool in deviated
wells, all October field wells were classified according to their
deviation angle as follows:
Class Angle % of total
Vertical wells < 6° 4%
Slightly deviated wells 6° : 15° 31%
Fairly deviated 16° : 25° 22%
Highly deviated wells 26° : 40° 23%
Severely deviated wells > 40° 10%
Figure 12 is a categorized summary for all PLT anomalies in
October field wells while Figure 13 and 14 are graphical
presentation for the hole deviation categories and the
percentage of each anomaly in the different deviated wells
categories respectively.
The two figures helped to pinpoint the following observations:
1. As the angle of deviation increases, the percentage of
good PLT’s decreases.
2. Anomalies occur not only in highly deviated wells but
also in vertical wells. Sixty four percent of PLT surveys
performed on vertical wells give non-representative results
(i.e. false positive, false negative or both).
3. Twenty five percent of PLT surveys performed in
severely deviated wells (> 40°) give good and acceptable
results.
4. Number of fluid entry points (perforation sets) is also a
5
key element that affects PLT tool performance, especially
if the upper perforation sets produces at a relatively low
rates.
Recent tool development
New PLT tools has been launched for field-testing lately. A
different measurement method has been added to the tool
besides the regular configuration to enhance its quantitative
analysis capabilities. Four resistivity probes making
independent bubble count measurements has been added to the
tool. The bubble counts gathered from the four probes are
then combined to generate images of water holdup and
hydrocarbon fluid distribution. The four resistivity probes are
mounted on four arms covering the wellbore to assure good
areal coverage. Exact hole diameter is also assured via a
caliper assembly. Figures 15 and 16 illustrate the main
configuration of the new component, and the digital bubble
count to determine hold ups.
Conclusions
Production logging is an indispensable tool to evaluate
producing and injection well’s performance and help reservoir
management.
A field study has been conducted to evaluate the performance
of typical PLT tool in October field characterized by steady
water rise mechanism. Wide range of wells conditions,
abundance of PLT surveys, and detailed work over records
was vital for the evaluation process.
In some cases, when water cut increases, old PLT data
recorded in the same well can be used to estimate the progress
of zone water out eliminating the cost of additional PLT.
Experience in October field indicates that results of production
logging analysis using conventional tool configuration are not
sufficient to make decisions for WSO work over. Well head
measurements, reservoir driving mechanism, and direction of
fluid movement should also be utilized
Limited areal coverage within the wellbore seems to introduce
a good deal of confusion to spinner results especially in
deviated wells. Sensitivity to changes in hole diameter or
fluid properties add more shortcomings to the spinner.
Misleading water production within the different sets of
perforations along the well was first recognized by WSO
results. These errors were first attributed only to hole
deviation, however, field scale investigation indicated that
other factors are involved since the problem was encountered
in vertical wells as well. Gradio-manometer’s poor accuracy
is believed to be the main reason for such non-representative
results. In fact, using measured density changes to calculate
hold ups is too simple to accurately reflect such complex
flowing conditions specifically, when the density changes are
small.
6 ADEL A. IBRAHIM & AZZAM MOSTAFA SPE 56650

References Table 1 October Field Nubia Formation – Pertinent

1. “Cased Hole Log Interpretation, Principle/Application.” Data
Schlumberger Document, 1998. Lighht crude gravity, API 26.7
2. “Production Log Interpretation.” Schlumberger Reservoir Temperature, ° F 265
Document, 1972. Original reservoir press. at datum 5506
3. Barenea, D.,Shohan, O., Taitel,Y. &Dukler, A.E”Flow Bubble point pressure at datum, psi 1683
“Pattern Transition for Horizontal and Inclined Pipes” Current reservoir pressure at datum, psi 2250
Int. J. Multiphase Flow 6:217-225, 1980. Original Bo, res. bbl/stb 1.1903
4. “Fluid Conversions of in Production Log Interpretation” Crude viscosity, cp 1.078
Schlumberger Document, 1974. Original GOR, scf/stb 279
5. Hill, A. D. and Dolman,T. “Production Logging Tool Menarology/lithology Sanstone
Behavior in Two-Phase Inclined Flow”. JPT October Gross thickness, feet 525
1982. PP. 2432-2440. Net pay thickness, feet 488
6. “Casedhole Log Analysis”. Halliburton Logging Average porosity, % 16
Services, August 1991. Average permeability, md 236
7. “Basic Formation Evaluation”. Amoco Document, Wettability Oil wet
1976. Original oil/water contact - 11,670
8. D.C. Borling, B.S. Power, and N. Ramadan. “Water Current oil/water contacto - 10800
Shut Off Case History Using Throught Tubing Bridge Reservoir driving mechanism Bottom
Plugs; October Field, Nubia Formation, Gulf of Suez, water rise
Egypt”. SPE 36213. Presented at the 7th Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exihibition and Conference, 13-
16 October, 1996.
9. Meunier, D.,Tixier, M.P., and Bonnet, J.L.”The
Production Combination Tool-A New System for
Production Monitoring” JPT (May, 1971).
10. Hasan, A.R., and Kabir, C.S., “A study of multiphase Casing Collar Locator
Flow Behavior in Vertial Oil Wells Part 1” Paper 15138
Telemetry Cartridge
presented at the 56th California Regional Meeting in
Ocland, CA 1986. Gamma Ray
11. Hasan, A.R., and Kabir, C.S., “A study of multiphase Precision Quartz Pressure Gauge
Flow Behavior in Vertial Oil Wells Part 2” Paper 15139
Gamma Ray
presented at the 56th California Regional Meeting in
Dual Tracer Ejector
Ocland, CA 1986.
Gamma Ray
12. Carnegie, A. , Roberts, N., and Clyne, I. “Application
of New-Generation Technology to Horizontal-Well Telemetry Interface
Production Logging-Examples From the North West
Thermometer-manometer
Shelf of Australia” Paper 50178, presented at the 1998 Gradiomanmeter
SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Fullbors Spinner Or
Perth, Australia, 12-14 October. Continuous Flowmeter
13. Eddi Local and Thomas Searight“ Wireline-Tractor
Production Logging Experience in Australian
Horizontal Wells. Paper 51612, presented at the 1998
SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well
Technology, Calgary, 1-4 November. Figure 1 PLT simultaneous production logging too
SPE 56650 PRODUCTION LOGGING PROBLEM DESCRIPTION IN OCTOBER FIELD GULF OF SUEZ 7

Table 2 Summary of PLT surveys in October field

WELL DATE DEV WC% RATE ANOMALY G-6 07-Jan-94 35 30 4640 P o sitive
A-1 12-Jan-95 3 20-30 4900 Good G-6 05-Oct-94 35 20-28 5200 P o sitive
A-1 26-Mar-96 3 30-40 3792 Good G-7 15-Jan-94 10 30 4944 P o sitive
A-1 08-Sep-96 3 46-55 3694 Good H-1 29-Jun-96 44 40-60 4592 P o sitive
A-2 21-Oct-93 8.4 27 4798 Good H-3 18-Feb-95 38 24-32 4072 P o sitive
A-7 11-May-94 12 30-40 4872 Good H-3 19-Oct-96 38 34-46 2736 P o sitive
G-6 10-Jan-97 35 26-34 5520 Good H-4 14-Apr-93 15 30 6536 P o sitive
G-6 14-Nov-97 36 40 4732 Good H-4 29-Apr-94 15 40-46 5728 P o sitive
J-1 04-Jul-95 2.5 30-36 5000 P o sitive
H-1 13-Oct-93 44 40 4056 Good
J-6 07-Sep-92 52.5 26-36 5700 P o sitive
H-1 10-Oct-94 44 65 4056 Good
J-8 11-Dec-93 14 70 4040 P o sitive
H-4 30-Jun-96 15 36-40 4513 Good
J-8 17-Nov-94 14 40-50 2844 P o sitive
H-4 12-Mar-98 15 50-70 3767 Good
J-8 14-May-96 14 46-70 3288 P o sitive
J-10 02-Feb-97 18 30-38 4227 Good
J-8 16-Feb-97 14 70 2166 P o sitive
K-4 12-Mar-97 2.2 23 5927 Good K-3 23-Sep-97 37.5 60 6120 P o sitive
K-5 17-Dec-97 12.5 45 4872 Good A-4 23-Jun-92 24 54-66 1362 P o sitive & Negative
A-7 21-Sep-96 12 48 3876 N.V. A-5 09-May-94 22 14-20 3280 P o sitive & Negative
A-8 12-Jul-94 9 34-46 2900 N.V. A-6 02-May-93 21 20 6486 P o sitive & Negative
C-7 28-Apr-95 29 30-40 4136 N.V. A-9 30-Apr-93 27 40 4350 P o sitive & Negative
C-7 23-Mar-97 29 56-66 3544 N.V. B-4 16-May-90 9.6 P o sitive & Negative
H-2 05-Jan-96 38 40-52 2086 N.V. B-5 14-Jan-94 23 22 4869 P o sitive & Negative
H-5 16-Oct-96 31 62-76 1278 N.V. C-3 02-Oct-92 22 50-60 4502 P o sitive & Negative
J-2 05-Mar-97 18 80 2137 N.V. C-3 27-Jul-93 22 P o sitive & Negative
J-6 12-Nov-95 52.5 24-30 3642 N.V. C-7 10-Oct-92 29 44 4984 P o sitive & Negative
J-6 30-Jan-98 52.5 40-60 4080 N.V. G-1 09-Nov-96 4 20-30 4482 P o sitive & Negative
A-1 19-Oct-93 3 24 5264 Negative G-1 25-Oct-97 4 32 4108 P o sitive & Negative
A-3 16-Aug-97 8 50 4767 Negative G-1 05-May-98 4 46 4997 P o sitive & Negative
A-6 25-Sep-96 21 30-40 5178 Negative G-13 14-Jan-96 45 36-42 4266 P o sitive & Negative
A-9 15-Jan-95 27 30-40 4136 Negative G-13 06-Nov-96 45 28 5238 P o sitive & Negative
B-3 30-Jul-89 9 30 5102 Negative G-4 21-Oct-96 26 44 4117 P o sitive & Negative
G-5 12-Jan-94 16 35 4296 P o sitive & Negative
G-4 24-Mar-98 28 40-50 3142 Negative
G-5 24-Apr-96 16 30-38 4735 P o sitive & Negative
G-7 18-Oct-97 10 20 5036 Negative
G-5 26-Oct-96 16 32-40 5319 P o sitive & Negative
H-4 24-Jul-95 15 34-40 5288 Negative
G-5 14-Oct-97 16.4 52 6352 P o sitive & Negative
H-7 06-Mar-96 13 60-70 5304 Negative
H-1 26-May-94 44 18-40 5344 P o sitive & Negative
J-2 30-Jun-92 18 56-47 2954 Negative
H-2 01-Jul-94 38 20-24 2981 P o sitive & Negative
K-1 27-Sep-97 17.8 5 5847 Negative H-3 03-Mar-98 38 42 4698 P o sitive & Negative
A-3 13-Oct-94 8 28 4424 Positive H-5 11-Feb-93 31 48-55 4432 P o sitive & Negative
A-4 07-Oct-93 24 40 3760 Positive H-5 14-Feb-94 31 40-50 2808 P o sitive & Negative
A-9 06-May-94 27 37 4496 Positive H-7 22-Oct-97 13 60 2801 P o sitive & Negative
B-4 21-Nov-91 9.6 70 2588 Positive J-1 22-Dec-92 2.5 30 6567 P o sitive & Negative
B-4 06-Aug-96 9.4 40-50 5168 Positive J-1 30-Jul-93 2.5 30 4116 P o sitive & Negative
B-7 07-Jul-95 27 46-58 4396 Positive J-4 06-Feb-97 13 50-55 4257 P o sitive & Negative
C-3 23-Jan-95 22 60-80 3720 Positive J-6 13-Jun-95 52.5 44-58 7000 P o sitive & Negative
C-3 22-Jan-98 22 42 3400 Positive K-5 22-Apr-98 12.5 48-60 5380 P o sitive & Negative

Table 3 Accepted density difference for same well from subsequent PLT logs

WELL PLT DATE WATER DELTA ROHO

DENSITY
A-9 6-May-94 1.085 0.005
15-Jan-95 1.08
C-7 28-Apr-95 1.11 0.019
23-Mar-97 1.091
G-1 9-Nov-96 1.077 0.017
5-May-98 1.06
G-4 21-Oct-96 1.07 0.005
24-Mar-98 1.075
G-13 14-Jan-96 1.065 0
6-Nov-96 1.065
K-5 17-Dec-97 1.08 0
22-Apr-98 1.08
8 ADEL A. IBRAHIM & AZZAM MOSTAFA SPE 56650

Table 4 Rejected density difference for same well from subsequent PLT logs

WELL PLT DATE WATER DELTA ROHO

DENSITY
A-1 19-Oct-93 1.067 0.043
12-Jan-95 1.11
A-3 13-Oct-94 1.14 0.07
16-Aug-97 1.07
A-4 23-Jun-92 1.04 0.035
7-Oct-93 1.075
A-6 2-May-93 1.08 0.034
25-Sep-96 1.046
A-7 11-May-94 1.103 0.049
21-Sep-96 1.054
B-4 16-May-90 1.07 0.038
21-Nov-91 1.108
C-3 2-Oct-92 1.1 0.03
22-Jan-98 1.07
G-5 12-Jan-94 1.105 0.04
26-Oct-96 1.065
G-6 5-Oct-94 1.136 0.071
10-Jan-97 1.065
G-7 15-Jan-94 1.109 0.039
18-Oct-97 1.07
H-1 13-Oct-93 1.11 0.06
29-Jun-96 1.05
H-2 1-Jul-94 1.053 0.033
5-Jan-96 1.02
H-3 18-Feb-95 1.105 0.037
3-Mar-98 1.068
H-4 14-Apr-93 1.129 0.063
30-Jan-96 1.066
H-5 14-Feb-94 1.054 0.041
16-Oct-96 1.095
H-7 6-Mar-96 1.106 0.114
22-Oct-97 1.22
J-1 22-Dec-92 1.176 0.026
4-Jul-95 1.15
J-2 30-Jun-92 1.08 0.04
5-Mar-97 1.12
J-6 13-Jun-95 1.14 0.02
12-Nov-95 1.12
J-8 11-Dec-93 1.1 0.035
16-Feb-97 1.135

October Field
O. Structural Contour Map
W
.C
.
-11
67
0'

Central Area

Back block
Frontal Acrab
16
00
11

0
00
0

Figure 2 Structural contour map for top Nubia, October field.

SPE 56650 PRODUCTION LOGGING PROBLEM DESCRIPTION IN OCTOBER FIELD GULF OF SUEZ 9

0
Interval Qo Qw Qt WC% % of
1
Stbpd Stbpd Stbpd total
2
11964-11995’ 904 0 904 0 16 3
12006-12028’ 0 0 0 0 0
4
12060-12086’ 352 0 352 0 6 Water Oil
5
12096-12137’ 0 0 0 0 0
6
12164-12250’ 447 0 447 0 8
7
12260-12290’ 0 0 0 0 0
8
12300-12318’ 322 0 322 0 6
9
12328-12390’ 1361 850 2211 38 38
10
12400-12440’ 150 1343 1493 90 26

h t p e D
11
12
Total 3536 2193 5729 38 100
13
14
15
16

Figure and table 3a PLT results for well October G-13 17 October well G-13
Logged on March 15, 96
18
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
BPD

Interval Qo Qw Qt WC% % of total 0

Stbpd Stbpd Stbpd 1
11964-11995’ 712 0 712 0 21 2
12006-12028’ 0 0 0 0 0 3 Oil
12060-12086’ 271 0 271 0 8
4
12096-12137’ 0 0 0 0 0
12164-12250’ 373 0 373 0 11 5

12260-12290’ 0 0 0 0 0 6
12300-12318’ 271 0 271 0 8 7
12328-12390’ 68 1695 1763 96 52 8
9
total 1695 1695 3390 50 100
hD
p
te

10
11
12
Figure and table 3b Results of production re-contribution 13
after isolating the bottom interval in G-13 well.
14
15
16
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
BPD
10 ADEL A. IBRAHIM & AZZAM MOSTAFA SPE 56650

Interval Qo Qw Qt WC % of total 0
Stbpd Stbpd Stbpd % 1
2
11875-11892’ 0 0 0 0 0
3
11898-11944’ 0 0 0 0 0 Oil
4 Water
11960-12000’ 764 0 764 0 13.3
5
12010-12040’ 908 0 908 0 15.9
6
12056-12080’ 686 8 694 1.2 12.1 7
12094-12118’ 312 16 328 4.9 5.7 8
12136-12170’ 663 36 699 5.2 12.2 9
12194-12220’ 663 272 935 29.1 16.3 10
12220-12238’ 487 448 935 47.9 16.3 11
12250-12310’ 83 378 461 82 8.1 12

htpeD
13
Total 4566 1158 5724 20 100 14
15
16
17
Figure and table 4a PLT results for October A-5 well; OctoberA-5 well
18 Loged on May 94
the two bottom Intervals still producing oil 19
20
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
BPD

Interval Qo Qw Qt WC% % of 0
1
Stbpd Stbpd Stbpd total 2

11875-11892’ 0 0 0 0 0 3
4
11898-11944’ 0 0 0 0 0 5

11960-12000’ 764 0 764 0 13.3 6

Water Oil
h

7
12010-12040’ 908 0 908 0 15.9
t

8
12056-12080’ 694 0 694 0 12.1 9
p

10
12094-12118’
e

328 0 328 0 5.7 11

D

12136-12170’ 699 0 699 0 12.2 12

13
12194-12220’ 844 91 935 10 16.3 14
12220-12238’ 0 935 935 100 16.3 15
16
12250-12310’ 0 461 461 100 8.2
17
18 October A-5 well
19
Total 4236 1487 5724 26 100
20
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
BPD
Figure and table 4b- Production re-alocation for
October A-5 well at 26% water cut.
SPE 56650 PRODUCTION LOGGING PROBLEM DESCRIPTION IN OCTOBER FIELD GULF OF SUEZ 11

A A

1 1

B B
2 2

C C
3 3
D D

Figure 5 Definition of positive and negative production

Interval Qo Qw Qt WC% % of 1

Stbp Stbpd Stbpd total 2

d 3

11726-86’ 226 208 435 47.9 16 4

h

11805-44’ 52 242 294 82.3 11 5

t
p

11856-68’ 0 0 0 0 0 6
e

11883-90’
D

37 217 254 85.5 9 7

11904-70’ 283 402 685 58.7 25 8

11982-036’ 230 856 1086 78.8 39 9

10

Total 828 1925 2754 70 100 11

12
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Figure and table 6 PLT analysis showing positive BPD
water production for October C-3 well.
12 ADEL A. IBRAHIM & AZZAM MOSTAFA SPE 56650

Interval Qo Qw Qt WC% % of 0
Stbp Stbpd stbpd total
1
d
2
11335-11372’ 186 38 224 17 4
3 Oil
11378-11388’ 284 -123 161 -76.3 3
4
11396-11403’ 94 61 155 39.2 3
11413-11454’ 2461 -1034 1427 -72.4 24 5

11466-11478’ 151 167 318 52.5 5 6

11490-11512’ 553 774 1327 58.3 22 7

11522-11560’ 308 2025 2331 86.8 39 8
Water

htpeD
9
total 4038 1908 5945 32 100 10

11

12
October H-4 well
Figure and table 7 PLT analysis showing negative 13 Logged on July 95
water production for October H4 well.
14
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
BPD

Interval Qo Qw Qt WC % of 0

Stbpd Stbpd stbpd % total 1

2
11292-11350’ 0 0 0 0 0 3
11378-11420’ 0 0 0 0 0 4
5
11432-11478’ 0 0 0 0 0
Oil
h

6
11488-11540’ 761 308 1069 28.8 22 7
t

11564-11631’ 420 -111 309 -36 6 8

p

9
11641-11670’ 1620 -1331 290 -459 6
e

10
11680-11715’ 384 759 1143 66.4 24
D

11
11725-11770’ 55 1893 1947 97.2 41 12
Water
13
11788-11820’ 0 0 0 0 0
14
15
October G-5 well
Total 3239 1518 4757 10 100 16 Logged on January
17 12, 1994
18
Figure and table 8 PLT analysis showing positive and negative 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

water production for October G-5 well. BPD

SPE 56650 PRODUCTION LOGGING PROBLEM DESCRIPTION IN OCTOBER FIELD GULF OF SUEZ 13

0
Interval Qo Qw Qt WC% % of total
1
Stbpd Stbpd Stbpd
2
11920-11964’ 33 135 168 80 23 3
11974-11982’ 0 0 0 -- 0 Water Oil
4
12001-12044’ 18 196 214 91 29
5
12058-12085’ 0 0 0 -- 0
6
12095-12140’ 216 134 349 38 48
7

htpeD
12150-12182’ 0 0 0 -- 0
8

9
Total 267 464 731 64 100
10 October B-5 well
Logged on
11 November 20, 97

Figure and table 9 Problem of low flow rate. 12

0 200 400 600 800
BPD

Interval Qo Qw Qt WC% % of total 0

October J-8 well
Logged on February
Stbpd Stbpd Stbpd 1 16, 1997
10986-11000’ 0 0 0 -- 0
2
11003-11013’ 0 0 0 -- 0
3 Water Oil
11028-11050’ 46 153 199 77 9
11066’-11097’ 53 145 198 73 9 4

11107-11123’ 0 0 0 -- 0 5
11127-11160’ 13 26 39 65 2
6
htpeD

EZSV plug leak 514 1217 1731 70 80

7

8
Figure and table 10 Problem of low flow rate.
9

10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
BPD

Water dragged with oil Water dragged with oil

Figure 11 Schematic showing water Oil moving up going up fast
re-circulation

Oil moving up

Oil moving up

Water going down Water going down

(a) (b)
14 ADEL A. IBRAHIM & AZZAM MOSTAFA SPE 56650

- Ve

Figure 12 A categorized summary for 8% + Ve

all PLT anomalies in October field

22%
wells.

48%

-/+ Ve 22%

Good

Slightly
deviated
6-15

31%
Vertical
(0-5)

14%

Figure 13 Classification of October

Wells based on deviation angle. 22% 10%
Severly
Fairly
deviated
deviated
(>40
(16-25 23%

Highly
deviated
(26-40

0.6
(+ve) (-ve)
(+/-ve) Good
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Vertical Slightly Fairly Highly Severly
(0-5) Deviated Deviated Deviated Deviated
(6-15) (16-25) (26-40) (>40)
Figure 14 Graphical representation for PLT anomalies for each category in October wells.
SPE 56650 PRODUCTION LOGGING PROBLEM DESCRIPTION IN OCTOBER FIELD GULF OF SUEZ 15

arms & blades with 4

resistive probes 4

Electronics section with

Caliper sensor & relative bearing

Figure 15 Resistivity probes for hold up measurements.

Probe
Probe output is binary
0 1

Water Holdup
Hw = White / Black + White

Oil Holdup
Flow

Ho = 1- H w
in diphasicflow

Bubble count
Time

BBC =•
bubbles/sec

Figure 16 digital bubble count and hold up calculations.